Urban land use and superfund cleanups

Journal of Urban Affairs

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 459-474

  Wernstedt, Kris ^a   Hersh, Robert ^a  

^a RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032275397     PISSN: 07352166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.1998.tb00432.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. (1996). Survey of states on institutional controls at federal facilities. Washington, DC: Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
2. Bartsch, C., & Munson, R. (1994). Restoring contaminated industrial sites. Issues in Science and Technology, 10(3), 74-78.
3. Clean Sites. (1990). Improving remedy selection: An explicit and interactive process for the Superfund program. Alexandria, VA: Author.
4. Clean Sites (1992). Main Street meets Superfund: Local government involvement at Superfund hazardous waste sites. Alexandria, VA: Author.
5. Clean Sites. (1994). A remedy for Superfund: Designing a better way of cleaning up America. Alexandria, VA: Author.
6. Davis, T. (1994). Ensuring the security of waste on site: The problem of institutional controls. Draft report for the US Environmental Protection Agency.
7. DeLong, J. V. (1995). Privatizing Superfund: How to clean up hazardous waste. Policy Analysis, 247. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
8. English, M. R., et al. (1993). Stakeholder involvement: Open process for reaching decisions about the future uses of contaminated sites. Final Report. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute.
9. Gaspar, C., & Van Burik, D. (1998). Local government use of institutional controls at contaminated sites. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
10. Glaser, M. (1994). Economic and environmental repair in the shadow of Superfund: Local government leadership in building strategic partnerships. Economic Development Quarterly, 8(4), 345-352.
11. Goff-Sanders, L. (1997). Brownfield legislation: A viable option for the Southeast. Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, 12(1), 141-165.
12. Haggerty, J. (1995, September 20). Retail plan aired to mixed reviews. Daily Times Chronicle (Woburn, Massachusetts), 1.
13. Hamilton, J. T., & Viscusi, W. K. (1995). The magnitude and policy implications of health risks from hazardous waste sites. In R. L. Revesz & R. B. Stewart, (Eds.). Analyzing Superfund: Economics, science, and law (pp. 55-81). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
14. Hersh, R., Probst, K., Wernstedt, K., & Mazurek, J. (1997). Linking land use and Superfund cleanups: Uncharted territory. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
15. Horsch, R. A., Milmed, P. K., & Plante, K. M. (1996). Brownfield redevelopment. Natural Resources & Environment, 11(1), 55-58.
16. Inside Washington Publishers. (1998, January 21). Helmke, president of mayors' group, makes brownfields first priority. Superfund Report, 12(2), 19-20.
17. International City/County Management Association. (1993). Improving remedy selection and the settlement process. Preliminary position paper, ICMA's Superfund Consortium. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
18. Landy, M. K., Roberts, M. J., & Thomas, S. R. (1994). The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the wrong questions, from Nixon to Clinton. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20. Michel, D. (1995). The CERCLA paradox and Ohio's response to the brownfields problem: Senate Bill 221. University of Toledo Law Review, 26(2), 435-465.
21. Padgett, C. S. (1994). Selecting remedies at Superfund sites: How should "clean" be determined? Vermont Law Review, 18(2), 361-407.
22. Page, G. W., & Rabinowitz, H. (1994). Potential for redevelopment of contaminated brownfield sites. Economic Development Quarterly, 8(4), 353-363.
23. Popper, F. (1981). The politics of land-use reform. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
24. Probst, K., Fullerton, D., Litan, R. & Portney, P. (1995). Footing the bill for Superfund cleanups: Who pays and how? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and Resources for the Future.
25. Public Policy Associates. (1996). Hazardous to your wealth: Does Superfund create barriers to capital for small business? Washington, DC: Small Business Foundation of America.
26. Simons, R. (1998). "How many brownfields are out there?" An economic base contraction analysis of 31 US cities. Public Works Management and Policy, 3(2).
27. Sussman, R. M. (1993). Statement of Robert M. Sussman, USEPA Deputy Administrator, before the House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, June 23, 1993. (Cited in US General Accounting Office (1994). Nuclear Cleanup: Completion of standards and effectiveness of land use planning are uncertain. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs, US Senate. GAO/ RCED-94-144. Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office).
28. Twombly, R. (1997). Urban uprising. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(1), 696-701.
29. US Department of Energy. (1995). The 1995 baseline environmental report. Volume 1. Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Management.
30. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1998). The effects of environmental hazards and regulation on urban redevelopment. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research.
31. US Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Superfund, NPL characterization project: National results. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/8-91/069. Washington, DC: Author.
32. US Environmental Protection Agency. (1995a). Land use decisions in the CERCLA remedy selection process. OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04. Washington, DC: Author.
33. US Environmental Protection Agency. (1995b). Land use decisions in the remedial process. OSWER 9355.0-55, EPA/540/R-95/037, PB95-963230. Washington, DC: Author.
34. US Environmental Protection Agency. (1995c). Relationship of projected future land use at completed sites to post-remedial land use. OSWER 9355.0-56, EPA/540/R-95/038, PB95-9638231. Washington, DC: Author.
35. US Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Supplementary materials: National Priorities List, proposed rule and final rule. Publication 9320.7-061 (March). Washington, DC: Author.
36. US General Accounting Office. (1994a). Nuclear cleanup: Completion of standards and effectiveness of land use planning are uncertain. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs, US Senate. GAO/RCED-94-144. Washington, DC: Author.
37. US General Accounting Office. (1994b). Superfund: EPA's community relations efforts could be more effective. GAO/RCED-94-156. Washington, DC: Author.
38. US General Accounting Office. (1995). Community development: Reuse of urban industrial sites. GAO/RCED-95-172. Washington, DC: Author.
39. US General Accounting Office. (1998, March). Superfund: Times to complete site listing and cleanup. GAO/T-RCED-98-74. Washington, DC: Author.
40. US Office of Technology Assessment. (1989). Coming clean: Superfund's problems can be solved. OTA-ITE-433. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
41. Viscusi, K. & Hamilton, J. T. (1994). Superfund and real risks. The American Enterprise, 5(2), 36-45.
42. Walker, K. D., Sadowitz, M., & Graham, J. (1995). Confronting Superfund mythology: The case of risk assessment and management. In R. L. Revesz & R. B. Stewart, (Eds.). Analyzing Superfund: Economics, science, and law (pp. 25-353). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
43. Waterman, C. (1992). Testimony (American Bankers Association) to US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Superfund, Oceans, and Water Protection. 102nd Congress, 1st Session, 17-19 (cited in R. I. Steinzor & M. F. Linterer). Local government and Superfund, 1992 update: Who is paying the tab? The Urban Lawyer, 24(1), p. 144).
44. Waterman, C. (1992). Testimony (American Bankers Association) to US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Superfund, Oceans, and Water Protection. 102nd Congress, 1st Session, 17-19 (cited in R. I. Steinzor & M. F. Linterer). Local government and Superfund, 1992 update: Who is paying the tab? The Urban Lawyer, 24(1), p. 144).
45. Wernstedt, K., & Probst, K. (1997). Land use and remedy selection: Experience from the field - The Industri-Plex site. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.